Central Information Commission
Vijay Grover vs Defence Research And Development ... on 8 February, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/DRADO/A/2020/118001
In the matter of:
Vijay Grover
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Defence Research and Development Organisation
RTI Cell, 314- A, B - Block, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 30/12/2019 CPIO replied on : 06/01/2020 First appeal filed on : 03/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 01/06/2020 Date of Hearing : 07/02/2022 Date of Decision : 07/02/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Ms. Anushree Tomar, Jt. Director and officiating CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information related to caste based reservation in appointment of Scientists in DRDO:
1. What is the percentage quota reserved for enrolment as Scientist into DRDO for SC Category.
2. What is the percentage quota reserved for enrolment as Scientist into DRDO for ST Category.
3. What is the percentage quota reserved for enrolment as Scientist into DRDO for BC Category.1
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO denied the desired information under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In second appeal, the appellant is aggrieved that the CPIO refused to provide the information on the grounds that under Sec 24(1) of the RTI Act, no information other than that relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation need be given, as DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the said Act.Further, the FAA also rejected providing the information on the same grounds.
His point of contention is that while agreeing with the grounds given, that this is not a case of corruption or human rights violation, the information sought is also not related to the core functioning of DRDO. The information sought does not in any way jeopardize the security or integrity of the nation; what is sought is only service rules. He also quoted certain judicial pronouncements to support his case. He also sought condonation of the slight delay in filing this second appeal. He therefore desired that the information sought be provided to him. He also drew attention to his written submissions dated 31.01.2022 sent by e-mail to the Commission. During the hearing he again pressed for the information.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply already given and again reiterated the fact that the organization is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is exempted from disclosure of information under Sec 24(1) of the said Act.
Observations:
At the outset, the Commission condones the delay in filing the second appeal as sought for by the appellant. From a perusal of the records of this case, the Commission is in agreement with the CPIO that the information cannot be provided on the grounds given by the CPIO in his reply and this is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Further, it is found apt to draw the attention of the appellant to an observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"2
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act". In view of the above quoted judgments, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. In the instant case, no case of human rights violation or corruption has been made out by the Appellant in his second appeal memo. Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is warranted.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date
3